Trump Knew of Putin's Involvement in 2016 U.S. Election 2 weeks before his inauguration

[Horsefly]

Just now, concha said:

Then they should live up to well-known (and serious) obligations and not put themselves in positions to be embarrassed.

Pussy-footing around serious problems and not confronting them has gotten us nowhere.

 

These are goals that the partners agreed upon to reach by 2024.  But because big, bad  Trump is on the hoof they need to double it and get to it quicker.  You bet Concha!  

[concha]

21 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

These are goals that the partners agreed upon to reach by 2024.  But because big, bad  Trump is on the hoof they need to double it and get to it quicker.  You bet Concha!  

The 2% target was established in 2002 in Prague.

Here's Obama in 2014:

"If we’ve got collective defense, it means that everybody’s got to chip in, and I have had some concerns about a diminished level of defense spending among some of our partners in NATO. Not all, but many," Obama said at a press conference in Brussels in March 2014, less than a week after Russia declared that Crimea was now a Russian state.

 

Results between 2014 and this year's NATO estimates? The increase as a percentage of GDP by NATO Europe has been 0.06% in four years. And at 1.5% of GDP they are still collectively 25% short of target.

And, again, per a recent FT article, the largest economy in NATO Europe by far appears to have no plan to get to 2% of GDP from their current approximate level of just 1.24%.

 

I find it fascinating that you are so around the bend about Trump that you are unbothered that a key "ally" cannot even put a full squadron of first-line fighter aircraft into combat;

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/05/germanys-typhoon-problem-only-four-fighters-can-be-made-combat-ready/

Video: Most of Germany's fighter jets (and tanks and ships and helicopters) are broken.

And the latest symptom to emerge of that crisis is the dwindling number of actually functional fighter jets that the Luftwaffe, Germany's air force, can actually call combat ready. For the Eurofighter Typhoon, Germany's main fighter aircraft, that number is four—out of a total of 128.

 

Cost-cutting procurement strategies have caused problems elsewhere over the past year for the Bundeswehr:

• The German Navy has had to refuse delivery of the first of its new class of frigates after the ship failed sea trials, and only five of the Navy's existing 13 frigates were capable of being deployed.
• The last available German submarine was pulled out of service for repairs, as all the other submarines in the fleet sit in drydock or sit idle due to lack of replacement parts. (One of those submarines may now be back in service.)
• The German Army was found to lack enough tanks and armored personnel carriers, or even enough basic equipment for soldiers, to fulfill its commitment to NATO's Very High Readiness Task Force at the beginning of 2019. While 105 out of 244 Leopard 2 tanks were called "ready for use," only nine could be fully armed for the VHRF.
• Only 12 of 62 Tiger attack helicopters and 16 of Germany's 72 CH-53 cargo helicopters were available for exercises and operations last year; the rest were grounded for maintenance.
• At any time over the last year, only three of the Bundeswehr Airbus A400M transport aircraft were ready to fly.

 

[Horsefly]

1 hour ago, concha said:

The 2% target was established in 2002 in Prague.

Here's Obama in 2014:

"If we’ve got collective defense, it means that everybody’s got to chip in, and I have had some concerns about a diminished level of defense spending among some of our partners in NATO. Not all, but many," Obama said at a press conference in Brussels in March 2014, less than a week after Russia declared that Crimea was now a Russian state.

 

Results between 2014 and this year's NATO estimates? The increase as a percentage of GDP by NATO Europe has been 0.06% in four years. And at 1.5% of GDP they are still collectively 25% short of target.

And, again, per a recent FT article, the largest economy in NATO Europe by far appears to have no plan to get to 2% of GDP from their current approximate level of just 1.24%.

 

I find it fascinating that you are so around the bend about Trump that you are unbothered that a key "ally" cannot even put a full squadron of first-line fighter aircraft into combat;

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/05/germanys-typhoon-problem-only-four-fighters-can-be-made-combat-ready/

Video: Most of Germany's fighter jets (and tanks and ships and helicopters) are broken.

And the latest symptom to emerge of that crisis is the dwindling number of actually functional fighter jets that the Luftwaffe, Germany's air force, can actually call combat ready. For the Eurofighter Typhoon, Germany's main fighter aircraft, that number is four—out of a total of 128.

 

Cost-cutting procurement strategies have caused problems elsewhere over the past year for the Bundeswehr:

• The German Navy has had to refuse delivery of the first of its new class of frigates after the ship failed sea trials, and only five of the Navy's existing 13 frigates were capable of being deployed.
• The last available German submarine was pulled out of service for repairs, as all the other submarines in the fleet sit in drydock or sit idle due to lack of replacement parts. (One of those submarines may now be back in service.)
• The German Army was found to lack enough tanks and armored personnel carriers, or even enough basic equipment for soldiers, to fulfill its commitment to NATO's Very High Readiness Task Force at the beginning of 2019. While 105 out of 244 Leopard 2 tanks were called "ready for use," only nine could be fully armed for the VHRF.
• Only 12 of 62 Tiger attack helicopters and 16 of Germany's 72 CH-53 cargo helicopters were available for exercises and operations last year; the rest were grounded for maintenance.
• At any time over the last year, only three of the Bundeswehr Airbus A400M transport aircraft were ready to fly.

 

we already know GE is deficient, your argument keeps looping this over and over.  doesn't refute the 2024 goal nor how the nations are tracking towards it.

 

this graph shows there is overall progress, and for GE they have had a growing GDP as well. In 2017 it was their largest in 10 years (light blue=2014/dark blue=2017) there has been a renewed commitment since 2014.

bottomline.  

2024 is the target date

Germany has shown growth from 2014-2017.

 

 

 

 

[concha]

1 hour ago, Horsefly said:

we already know GE is deficient, your argument keeps looping this over and over.  doesn't refute the 2024 goal nor how the nations are tracking towards it.

 

this graph shows there is overall progress, and for GE they have had a growing GDP as well. In 2017 it was their largest in 10 years (light blue=2014/dark blue=2017) there has been a renewed commitment since 2014.

bottomline.  

2024 is the target date

Germany has shown growth from 2014-2017.

I hope this helps you...

https://www.ft.com/content/5b683346-578b-11e8-b8b2-d6ceb45fa9d0

 

Quote

Ursula von der Leyen, a party colleague and close political ally of chancellor Angela Merkel, told a military conference in Berlin: “We want to remain a reliable partner within our alliances . . . We reached a low in terms of our defence expenditure in 2015 with 1.1 per cent of GDP. Next year, in 2019, we will probably reach 1.3 per cent. And we will notify the Nato summit in Brussels that we want to reach defence expenditure of 1.5 per cent of GDP in 2025.”

I checked the calendar and I think 2025 is after 2024. Pretty sure.

[Horsefly]

16 minutes ago, concha said:

I hope this helps you...

https://www.ft.com/content/5b683346-578b-11e8-b8b2-d6ceb45fa9d0

 

I checked the calendar and I think 2025 is after 2024. Pretty sure.

Their GDP is growing, so if their NATO exp rate is increasing, that means their actual defense growth is exceeding 1.3%.  Probably closer to 5%. (Check it for yourself)

they are making investments in defense greater than their GDP growth annual rate.

what we should be stressing are specific capabilities they should acquire.  Here's the fallacy of defense spending as a % of GDP.  If GDP drops, what happens to actual investment in capabilities?  It drops as well, but as long as they are at 2%, everyone is happy.  Silly

Germany is actually growing..fact!

[concha]

24 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

Their GDP is growing, so if their NATO exp rate is increasing, that means their actual defense growth is exceeding 2%.  Probably closer to 5%. (Check it for yourself)

what we should be stressing are specific capabilities they should acquire.  Here's the fallacy of defense spending as a % of GDP.  If GDP drops, what happens to actual investment in capabilities?  It drops as well, but as long as they are at 2%, everyone is happy.  Silly

Germany is actually growing..fact!

 

So what if their GDP is growing?

2% is 2%. Ever hear of inflation?

Despite a $4.2 trillion economy, the fuckers don't have enough airworthy combat fighters to count on one hand.

Their sub fleet is tied up at dock.

They have roughly one combat ready tank per 1,400 sq miles of territory.  That's bigger than Rhode Island.

How's that for a growing economy?

We ever need help from them and they've got near bupkus to offer except maybe some emotional support.

Heaven forbid we ever have ours dying because they didn't pull their weight while folks like you made excuses for them.

 

[concha]

[Horsefly]

18 minutes ago, concha said:

 

So what if their GDP is growing?

2% is 2%. Ever hear of inflation?

Despite a $4.2 trillion economy, the fuckers don't have enough airworthy combat fighters to count on one hand.

Their sub fleet is tied up at dock.

They have roughly one combat ready tank per 1,400 sq miles of territory.  That's bigger than Rhode Island.

How's that for a growing economy?

We ever need help from them and they've got near bupkus to offer except maybe some emotional support.

Heaven forbid we don't ever have ours dying because they didn't pull their weight while folks like you made excuses for them.

 

The chart I provided is baselined to 2010 costs.  Their defense spending growth is greater than their GDP growth. 

Do you read what I post?  I said we need to be specific in capabilities they need to bring to the table.  I also told you there are smoke and mirrors on spending on defense.  It would not surprise me that they have real increases in spending but are spending them on quality of life programs like salaries and benefits.  None of them add to the increases in capability you outlined.

Germany doesn't take the lead in coalition force engagements nor are they asked to.  Which nation is the ONLY one to be authorized to be the supreme allied commander of all coalition forces?      

[concha]

1 minute ago, Horsefly said:

The chart I provided is based on 2010 costs.  So inflation is not a factor.  

Do you read what I post?  I said we need to be specific in capabilities they need to bring to the table.  I also told you there are smoke and mirrors on spending on defense.  It would not surprise me that they have real increases in spending but are spending them on quality of life programs like salaries and benefits.  None of them add to the increases in capability you outlined.

Germany doesn't take the lead in coalition force engagements nor are they asked to.  Which nation is the ONLY one to be authorized to be the supreme allied commander of all coalition forces?      

A percent is a percent.

A percentage factor is meant to account for the fact that economies tend to grow.

2010 costs are relevant to dollar-value, not percentage, spending.

I absolutely agree that parameters need to be put around actual capability spending.

Right now these bastards have a military in name only. Yet were they to require help, you can be damn sure they'd be calling the White House and invoking treaty obligations.

Trump was absolutely correct to put them on the spot. Something Obama did not do.

[Horsefly]

37 minutes ago, concha said:

A percent is a percent.

A percentage factor is meant to account for the fact that economies tend to grow.

2010 costs are relevant to dollar-value, not percentage, spending.

I absolutely agree that parameters need to be put around actual capability spending.

Right now these bastards have a military in name only. Yet were they to require help, you can be damn sure they'd be calling the White House and invoking treaty obligations.

Trump was absolutely correct to put them on the spot. Something Obama did not do.

Germany' has increased their defense spending significantly.  They are obviously not sitting on their hands and doing nothing .

And the 2% is a  goal not mandate.  

https://www.thelocal.de/20170301/this-is-how-much-german-military-spending-has-grown-over-time

Obama was the one to get the wheels moving, he called them out in 2014 where they agreed to the 2% goal within 10 yrs. and they have increased their spending ever since.  Fact.

here were the Wales summit agreements in 2014.  Paragraph 14 outlines expectations to include % of defense spending in RDT&E.  good read

https://www.nato.int/cps/ic/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm

[concha]

3 hours ago, Horsefly said:

Germany' has increased their defense spending significantly.  They are obviously not sitting on their hands and doing nothing .

And the 2% is a  goal not mandate.  

https://www.thelocal.de/20170301/this-is-how-much-german-military-spending-has-grown-over-time

Obama was the one to get the wheels moving, he called them out in 2014 where they agreed to the 2% goal within 10 yrs. and they have increased their spending ever since.  Fact.

here were the Wales summit agreements in 2014.  Paragraph 14 outlines expectations to include % of defense spending in RDT&E.  good read

https://www.nato.int/cps/ic/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm

For the Love of Pete..

The Germans have increased spending so much (LMAO) that their fighter aircraft can't fly, 60% of their tanks are useless, 100% of their submarines are...

And I showed you the FT article clearly showing the Germans have no intention of reaching 2% spending. They're aspirational target is just 1.5%... and that a year late! 

Their spending as a percentage of GDP has increased by hundredths of a percent since 2014 and they aren't even close to 1.5% yet, let alone 2%.

[Horsefly]

25 minutes ago, concha said:

For the Love of Pete..

The Germans have increased spending so much (LMAO) that their fighter aircraft can't fly, 60% of their tanks are useless, 100% of their submarines are...

And I showed you the FT article clearly showing the Germans have no intention of reaching 2% spending. They're aspirational target is just 1.5%... and that a year late! 

Their spending as a percentage of GDP has increased by hundredths of a percent since 2014 and they aren't even close to 1.5% yet, let alone 2%.

Jesus Christ how many got damn times are you going to mention the same thing!  

I already know they don’t have operational  capabilityity.    I’m the one that said specific capabilities needed to be agreed upon beforehand...not you!!  If we want them to have operational aircraft, subs and tanks we should state how many, the number in their standing Army, etc.  the 1.5% doesn’t mean shit if they spend it on QOL.  

Once again you’re locking in on one post  when I’ve said a lot. 

[concha]

1 minute ago, Horsefly said:

Jesus Christ how many got damn times are you going to mention the same thing!  

I already know they don’t have operational  capabilityity.    I’m the one that said specific capabilities needed to be agreed upon beforehand...not you!!  If we want them to have operational aircraft, subs and tanks we should state how many, the number in their standing Army, etc.  the 1.5% doesn’t mean shit if they spend it on QOL.  Read my entire post buddy! 

"Obama was the one to get the wheels moving, he called them out in 2014 where they agreed to the 2% goal within 10 yrs. and they have increased their spending ever since.  Fact."

I simply pointed out how empty of meaning and results the above quote was. Their military is in shambles and they have intention of getting to 2%, this per an actual German government official and close confidante of Lovely Angele.

Howsabout getting their spending to target levels and fucking repairing what they have so their guns bang and their planes can get off the ground? Those are pretty specific capabilities to start with.

That you criticize our president for calling out "allies" who refuse to be able to defend themselves is ridiculous.

[Horsefly]

9 minutes ago, concha said:

"Obama was the one to get the wheels moving, he called them out in 2014 where they agreed to the 2% goal within 10 yrs. and they have increased their spending ever since.  Fact."

I simply pointed out how empty of meaning and results the above quote was. Their military is in shambles and they have intention of getting to 2%, this per an actual German government official and close confidante of Lovely Angele.

Howsabout getting their spending to target levels and fucking repairing what they have so their guns bang and their planes can get off the ground? Those are pretty specific capabilities to start with.

That you criticize our president for calling out "allies" who refuse to be able to defend themselves is ridiculous.

It’s the truth, you are giving credit to trump on the focus on increased support when Obama started that wheel turning. 

Besides the point. what the hell did your president say that will ensure they fix those operational deficiencies? (Even if they were to get to 2%) 

My point is they are spending money, what are we getting for it?  

I’ll wait for your reply 

[concha]

Just now, Horsefly said:

It’s the truth, what the hell did your president say that will ensure they fix those operational deficiencies? (Even if they were to get to 2%) 

My point is they are spending money, what are we getting for it?  

I’ll wait for your reply 

The Germans have no intention of getting to 2%. I've shown you the backup, and it's very recent. Not 4 years old.

My issue is OUR president being attacked for calling out the fucking sauerkraut-eating deadbeats by his own countrymen. AFTER the Germans apparently lied in 2014 no less!

[Horsefly]

10 minutes ago, concha said:

The Germans have no intention of getting to 2%. I've shown you the backup, and it's very recent. Not 4 years old.

My issue is OUR president being attacked for calling out the fucking sauerkraut-eating deadbeats by his own countrymen. AFTER the Germans apparently lied in 2014 no less!

Now you’re engaging in hyperbole.  They didn’t lie, they have increased their funding and have realized and been upfront that they will fall short.  It was always a goal, not a nandate! 

But he’s being chastised for weakening the relationships as his dress down was to all European nato nations,  some of which will meet the goals.

If GE was the focus then conference with them separately.  Diplomacy!  

We will see how it all works out.  

[RedZone]

11 minutes ago, concha said:

fucking sauerkraut-eating deadbeats

I take it you will not be marrying a german immigrant...

 

Aren't you the same guy that bragged about being married one time to a fucking enchilada-eating spanish lady?

 

Your life is SO freakin sad.....

[concha]

[Bormio]

3 minutes ago, concha said:

Only thing Floyd ever did for the Pats, but it was rather spectacular.

[Cat_Scratch]

On 7/18/2018 at 10:30 PM, stanscript said:

The New York Times is reporting that President-Elect  Trump was informed by U.S. Intelligence on January 6, 2017 of Putin's role in disrupting the U.S. Election.  Putin ordered the hacking.

So, no witch hunt. 

No witch hunt. 

No witch  hunt.

Trump has been misleading the public for over 18 months and the gullibles took it hook, line and sinker.  Trump was shown captured texts and emails proving Putin's involvement.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/world/europe/trump-intelligence-russian-election-meddling-.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/intelligence-chiefs-expected-in-new-york-to-brief-trump-on-russian-hacking/2017/01/06/5f591416-d41a-11e6-9cb0-54ab630851e8_story.html?utm_term=.7400d1d9f959

and the declassified report from FOX News                http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/06/report-on-russian-activities-and-intentions-in-recent-us-elections.html

Didn't this happen under Obama's term?

Hummm. Things would have been just fine if the Hills won, right? No one would have gave to shits...

[concha]

[concha]

[World Citizen]

3 hours ago, Cat_Scratch said:

Didn't this happen under Obama's term?

Hummm. Things would have been just fine if the Hills won, right? No one would have gave to shits...

Absolutely not.  This has been a misunderstanding from the start.  Country before party.  

 Its not about Hillary and never has been.  Once Trump won that was the end of the election.  Now I can only speak for myself but I think most on the left would think along these points - Russia attacked ALL of us and they did an excellent job, Trumps own actions and lies have connected him to Russia, Russia is still doing it and our President isn't even going to try to protect our country from attacks in the future.  Which is his most important job as President even though he treats the presidency like a reality show.  

If Clinton had won and was acting and saying things like Trump is doing - denying his own country in favor of Putin, the whole damn country would be pissed and demanding answers.  What is the point of a political party when a adversary attacks the country?  The choice to defend our country shouldn't be dependent on which party happens to have won the last election.  

[concha]

[concha]

Putin's bitch strikes again.

When will America wake up to Trump's treachery?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jul/20/pentagon-send-200-million-military-aid-package-ukr/

The Defense Department approved a $200 million military aid package to Ukrainian forces on Friday, bringing the total amount of American weapons and equipment sent to support Kiev’s fight against Russian-backed separatists in the country to $1 billion.